Shooting of Trayvon Martin - Page 113

On June 03 2013 15:47 zbedlam wrote:
Man follows kid to house. Kid sees man following him, lets assume the kid attacks the man. Man shoots kid. You shouldn't be able to argue self defense if you are following someone with malicious intent (not too familiar with US legal system). If the evidence that ThievingMagpie said is legitimate then there is no question whether or not it was malicious.

On June 04 2013 03:20 Slaughter wrote:
I wouldn't call what Zimmerman had a lot of damage lol. You guys make it seem like he was in bad shape which is absolutely not true.

On June 04 2013 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Him being damaged is also not proof that what he did was self defense. The only thing it proves was that a fight happened.

According to his testimony it was self defense/surprise attack/come out of the darkness/after they talked.

According to Martin's Girlfriend's testimony, martin saw zman, asked zman a question, phone suddenly cut out. Zimmerman's defenders are not cool with the GF's testimony because it shows Martin as the guy being attacked.

On June 04 2013 03:23 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Him being damaged is also not proof that what he did was self defense. The only thing it proves was that a fight happened.

According to his testimony it was self defense/surprise attack/come out of the darkness/after they talked.

According to Martin's Girlfriend's testimony, martin saw zman, asked zman a question, phone suddenly cut out. Zimmerman's defenders are not cool with the GF's testimony because it shows Martin as the guy being attacked.

On March 6, 2013, prosecutors admitted that witness 8 had lied under oath, when she falsely testified that she had been in the hospital on the day of Martin's funeral.

On June 03 2013 15:47 zbedlam wrote:
Man follows kid to house. Kid sees man following him, lets assume the kid attacks the man. Man shoots kid. You shouldn't be able to argue self defense if you are following someone with malicious intent (not too familiar with US legal system). If the evidence that ThievingMagpie said is legitimate then there is no question whether or not it was malicious.

On June 04 2013 03:38 Krohm wrote:


Well hey Magpie since you like branding people as liars when they've recanted something how about this.



Witness 8 is Trayvon's "girlfriend".

So I guess one lie means she's a complete and utter liar and can't be believed about anything. Magpie logic.


Also it doesn't show anything. You're just jumping to conclusions again. Just because a phone cuts out it doesn't mean that Zimmerman attacked Trayvon. Completely ridiculous.

The damage that zimmerman had on him in proportion to what trayvon had is proof that it was self defense

On June 04 2013 03:20 Slaughter wrote:
I wouldn't call what Zimmerman had a lot of damage lol. You guys make it seem like he was in bad shape which is absolutely not true.

On June 04 2013 03:51 FallDownMarigold wrote:



Not quite, Sermokala. Documentation of Martin's and Zimmerman's injuries are pieces of evidence, not stand alone examples of proof toward a specific conclusion. The injury evidence shows Zimmerman took more damage during the conflict prior to the shooting. It is not sufficient nor even necessary proof that Zimmerman received the injuries as a result of attempting to repel an "ambush" or calculated assault. If I am threatened with force and I deflect that force and happen to inflict greater force during the response, resulting in my attacker being more injured than me, it does not by default "prove" that the attacker was acting in self defense.

Suppose upon catching sight of Zimmerman again that Martin decided to stop and meet his follower. Suppose the two got into one another's face and a scuffle ensued, without any clear "attacker" established? The injuries observed on the two might result in any number of ways.

I don't think you can infer without any doubt the exact nature and especially intent of a fight based on injuries alone.

On June 04 2013 04:48 Sermokala wrote:

The level of mental gymnastics you had to do to make that post amaze me.

The injuries that they sustained are standalone pieces of evidence on what happened. They don't point a specific conclusion but they point to what happened in support to other pieces of evidence. He didn't "deflect" the force he was pushed to the ground and had his head smashed against the sidewalk. Threats of force do not constitute force. It doesn't matter what Zimmerman threatened trayvon with, (heres your made up evidence btw of zimmerman threatening trayvon. Its never nowhere said that Zimmerman threaten trayvon in any way) but that trayvon was the one that responded with force that makes him the attacker. It doesn't matter how much my wife yelled at me but the second I lay hands on her I'm the one thats committed domestic violence.

Even in your timeline its clear that trayvon is the aggressor. Zimmerman can follow trayvon all he wants and there isn't anything Zimmerman is doing wrong. Zimmerman has a motive of being a neighborhood watch and is investigating his neighborhood. Trayvon coming back and confronting Zimmerman about why hes following him violently makes him the aggressor. trayvon coming back and starting a scuffle with Zimmerman makes trayvon the aggressor. Trayvon coming back to ask him why hes being followed and Zimmerman getting in trayvons face and pushing him would still make trayvon the aggressor considering who got his head smashed against the sidewalk and who got no damage on him at all in a fight.

Beacuse of the physical evidence of his wounds and trayvons wounds prior to the shooting its justifiable that Zimmerman though his life was in danger and that is what self defense needs.

On June 04 2013 04:48 Sermokala wrote:

The level of mental gymnastics you had to do to make that post amaze me.

The injuries that they sustained are standalone pieces of evidence on what happened. They don't point a specific conclusion but they point to what happened in support to other pieces of evidence. He didn't "deflect" the force he was pushed to the ground and had his head smashed against the sidewalk. Threats of force do not constitute force. It doesn't matter what Zimmerman threatened trayvon with, (heres your made up evidence btw of zimmerman threatening trayvon. Its never nowhere said that Zimmerman threaten trayvon in any way) but that trayvon was the one that responded with force that makes him the attacker. It doesn't matter how much my wife yelled at me but the second I lay hands on her I'm the one thats committed domestic violence.

Even in your timeline its clear that trayvon is the aggressor. Zimmerman can follow trayvon all he wants and there isn't anything Zimmerman is doing wrong. Zimmerman has a motive of being a neighborhood watch and is investigating his neighborhood. Trayvon coming back and confronting Zimmerman about why hes following him violently makes him the aggressor. trayvon coming back and starting a scuffle with Zimmerman makes trayvon the aggressor. Trayvon coming back to ask him why hes being followed and Zimmerman getting in trayvons face and pushing him would still make trayvon the aggressor considering who got his head smashed against the sidewalk and who got no damage on him at all in a fight.

Beacuse of the physical evidence of his wounds and trayvons wounds prior to the shooting its justifiable that Zimmerman though his life was in danger and that is what self defense needs.

On June 04 2013 03:47 Thieving Magpie wrote:


Both lied, one lied about where she was during someone's death, the other has a changing story of the events that happened.

I wonder which lie you put more pressure against?

So let's be fair then--and negate both testimonies.

We don't know if it was self defense, but Zman was armed while pursuing the suspect. We know Zman pursued the victim because he was complaining that "they" always get away" and then proceeded to walk away from his car toward's the suspect's home. Upon meeting up with the victim, Zimmerman shoots the victim.

Since zimmerman has lied about both his finances as well as his constantly changed his story--his statements can be ignored. Since the girlfriend wasn't at the hospital yet, we can supposedly ignore her statement as well (according to your logic)

If we ignore both their statements, what we have is Zimmerman followed a kid toward's the kid's home--and then shot him.

On June 04 2013 12:22 sluggaslamoo wrote:


Thieving Magpie, everybody knows this already. If everybody only considered these points, this thread wouldn't be exploding non-stop.

The problem is the people who support Zimmerman place more value on different pieces of evidence to Trayvon supporters. Lets try to extinguish this tribal mentality and have a more worthwhile debate. Some of the posts I made very early on are very similar to yours, it seems very obvious to you yes, it would make me emotional that for what I believed was common-sense was ignored, but realise that what you are saying doesn't matter.

On June 04 2013 05:26 FallDownMarigold wrote:
@Sermokala
When in fuck's name did I ever say Zimmerman threatened Martin? It was a plainly clear and unrelated side example illustrating how one person might cause more physical damage to another even when that other person was the true aggressor. You said the injuries themselves constitute proof for self defense, which they don't. They contribute to a larger collection of evidence, which you actually do seem to understand despite your other post, which is good.

Seems like you tend to respond to things very strongly without comprehending them to begin with. Might wanna work on that. To return the snark, I'll finish with "the level of incomprehension you needed to produce that response amazes me"

If I am threatened with force and I deflect that force and happen to inflict greater force during the response, resulting in my attacker being more injured than me, it does not by default "prove" that the attacker was acting in self defense.

On June 04 2013 12:58 Sermokala wrote:



Apparently In Marigold land you don't even have to remember your own posts after you post them. Clearly positioning trayvon to be the deflector and Zimmerman being the one inflicted with greater force. There isn't any other credible evidence other then the physical evidence on the scene. The injuries point to a series of events happening, that constitutes proof for self defense. In the lack of other evidence that supporting of Zimmerman side of things is all that matter in the case.

Crushinator doesn't even read your posts. I respond to your post and he responds to my post as if it was its own post without any context at all. Self defense can only be used in times where it actually threatens your life. You can't just beat the shit out of anyone who just talks a mean game at you. Your wife bitching at you piss's you off the same as some random person threatening you on the street does. In neither case does this constitute a threat to your life and you'll get charged with assault in either case.

Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head on the pavement. That constitutes self defense. Trayvon was high walking though a neighborhood being questioned by some random middle aged guy asking him what he was doing in that neighborhood. That does not constitute self defense.

On June 04 2013 12:58 Sermokala wrote:



Apparently In Marigold land you don't even have to remember your own posts after you post them. Clearly positioning trayvon to be the deflector and Zimmerman being the one inflicted with greater force. There isn't any other credible evidence other then the physical evidence on the scene. The injuries point to a series of events happening, that constitutes proof for self defense. In the lack of other evidence that supporting of Zimmerman side of things is all that matter in the case.

Crushinator doesn't even read your posts. I respond to your post and he responds to my post as if it was its own post without any context at all. Self defense can only be used in times where it actually threatens your life. You can't just beat the shit out of anyone who just talks a mean game at you. Your wife bitching at you piss's you off the same as some random person threatening you on the street does. In neither case does this constitute a threat to your life and you'll get charged with assault in either case.

Zimmerman was on the ground getting his head on the pavement. That constitutes self defense. Trayvon was high walking though a neighborhood being questioned by some random middle aged guy asking him what he was doing in that neighborhood. That does not constitute self defense.

On June 06 2013 02:43 dAPhREAk wrote:
this seems relevant to your guy's discussion. zimmerman has filed a motion to exclude certain terms from being used at trial. the list of terms are:

"profiled"
"vigilante"
"self appointed neighborhood watch captain"
"wannabe cop"
"he got out of the car after the police (or dispatcher) told him not to"
"he confronted trayvon martin"

the motion in limine discusses the reasons for each (basically that they are factually inaccurate and disparaging).

http://www.gzdocs.com/documents/0613/limine_use_of_terms.pdf

this should be interesting because these terms have been used extensively (and inappropriately in my opinion) in this thread to discuss the issues in this case. lets see how the court rules on them.